1) According to one senator, the Hill didn't have any numbers on how effective the proposed program was likely to be (just throwing dollars at a problem?)
2) There are already 6 other vet jobs programs in place, and they didn't have any numbers on how effective those 6 were
3) Planned spending for the program would violate an existing spending/budget agreement.

Here are some more facts:

The "fully funded" claim - the money was to come from "Research and development program for ultra-deepwater and unconventional natural gas and other petroleum resources."

What is that exactly?

The Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources Research Program, launched by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), is a public/private partnership valued at $400 million over eight years that is designed to benefit consumers by developing technologies to increase America’s domestic oil and gas production and reduce the Nation’s dependency on foreign imports.

So basically taking funds and jobs away from one group of people and hoping it helps vets.

Additionally:

Key aspects of the program include utilizing a non-profit consortium to manage the research, establishing two federal advisory committees, and funding of $50 million per year derived from royalties, rents, and bonuses from federal onshore and offshore oil and gas leases.

The program elements and their share of the funding, as prescribed by EPAct are as follows:

Ultra-deepwater architecture and technology (35% of funds).

Unconventional natural gas and other petroleum resource exploration and production technology (32.5%).

The technology challenges of small producers (7.5%).

Research complementary to the above conducted by NETL (25%).

So which part was to be robbed to "pay for" this bill?

Even if it was the 35%, how does 35% of 50 Million supposed to pay for a BILLION dollar bill?

President Obama today will continue his record-smashing fundraising schedule with six events in two states, tying the number for most fundraisers attended in a single day of his re-election campaign. Obama will raise north of $3.6 million for the Obama Victory Fund in Baltimore and Philadelphia, according to figures provided by the campaign.

The latest round of money events – with several more scheduled for New York City on Thursday, including a star-studded reception at actress Sarah Jessica Parker’s home – underscores the unprecedented amount of time the president is spending on the money trail.

In the first 12 days of June, Obama has attended 21 fundraising events. All told, he has now attended 163 re-election fundraisers for his campaign and the Democratic Party – almost double the number George W. Bush attended in his entire first term (86) and more than any other president in history.

President Obama noted in an interview Monday that his busy schedule prevented him from campaigning in Wisconsin for Tom Barrett ahead of the recall vote. “The truth of the matter is that as president of the United States, I have a lot of responsibilities,” he told ABC’s Green Bay, Wis., affiliate WBAY.

Those “responsibilities” in the days before and after the vote included a public schedule dominated by fundraisers: six in Minneapolis and Chicago three days before the election; three in New York City on the eve of the election (including a flight on Air Force One with Bon Jovi); and five more the day after Barrett lost.

And a growing number of the money events are closed to the press, despite Democrats’ criticism of Mitt Romney for the same. In June alone, Obama has held six private roundtables with deep-pocket donors who each paid more than $40,000 for face time and influence with the president.

Presidential historians and political scientists tell ABC News the fundraising spike is due to the rising costs of campaigns, contribution limits that are low relative to the cost of campaigns and the abandonment of the public financing system. They also point out that Obama is under pressure to compete against pro-GOP outside groups that have pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat him.

“Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton all accepted public funding at both the nominating and general election stages – and this is key to the small number of fundraisers they attended,” said U.S. Naval Academy political scientist Brendan Doherty. “They were bound by the spending limits that came with public funding.” But not so for George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Even while Obama’s fundraising frenzy can be explained, it still means significant expense to taxpayers for costs of presidential travel and security that are not reimbursed by the campaign.

The campaign uses a complicated formula that’s based on what it would cost to charter a 737 to make the same flight, according to the White House. It’s a price significantly less.

With the citizens united ruling, political fundraising has changed. Presidential campaigns need a lot more money and taking public funds limits what they can raise on their own.

From the AP in April:

New York (AP) - A cornerstone of U.S. politics since the 1970s, public funding of presidential campaigns may soon go the way of other relics of the era like long sideburns and lava lamps. Neither President Barack Obama nor any of the leading 2012 Republican contenders is expected to accept federal matching funds and the limits they impose.

In fact, opting to take public money to finance a presidential campaign this year is likely to be seen as the mark of a loser.

"I would be shocked if they took matching funds. I don't think that it's a successful model this time, or in the future," says GOP strategist Carl Forti. He's been an adviser to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and helped run American Crossroads, an independent group that raised millions to defeat Democratic candidates in 2010.

What does that have to do with A) Obama spending more time at fund-raisers than actually being President B) taxpayers paying out the nose so he can use AF1, at 180k per hour, to attend these fund-raisers?

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/20/2012 1:52:00 PM (view original):What does that have to do with A) Obama spending more time at fund-raisers than actually being President B) taxpayers paying out the nose so he can use AF1, at 180k per hour, to attend these fund-raisers?

You posted the entire article. If those were the only points you wanted to make, you should have said so.

A) He's campaigning, that's what happens. Pretty sure it's nothing outside the norm.
B) That's the way the rule is set. Every other President has campaigned using Air Force One and billed it the same way.

A) This part says it's outside the norm: "All told, he has now attended 163 re-election fundraisers for his campaign and the Democratic Party – almost double the number George W. Bush attended in his entire first term (86) and more than any other president in history."

B) Please see A in order to understand how Obama is hitting the pockets of Americans with MUCH MORE frequency than any other President.